xt74b853jd0k https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt74b853jd0k/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1987-04-13  minutes 2004ua061 English   Property rights reside with the University of Kentucky. The University of Kentucky holds the copyright for materials created in the course of business by University of Kentucky employees. Copyright for all other materials has not been assigned to the University of Kentucky. For information about permission to reproduce or publish, please contact the Special Collections Research Center. University of Kentucky. University Senate (Faculty Senate) records Minutes (Records) Universities and colleges -- Faculty University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, April 13, 1987 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, April 13, 1987 1987 1987-04-13 2020 true xt74b853jd0k section xt74b853jd0k LNUVERSHY OF KENTUCKY



TO: Members, University Senate

The University Senate will meet in regular session on Monday,
April 13, 1987, at 3:00 p.m. in ROOM 115 of the Nursing Building

Minutes of February 9, 1987.
Chairman's Announcements and Remarks.

Report on University Studies Program —— Professor Louis Swift,

Presentation honoring President Otis Singletary.

a. Proposal to amend University Senate Rules, Section V —
3.5.1 (Repeat Option) to allow students to repeat a course
on a pass—fail basis even though the course was originally
taken for a letter grade. (Circulated under date of 27
March 1987.)


Proposal to amend University Senate Rules, Section I —
2.2.3 (EX Officio Membership) to add the Vice Chancellor
for Academic Affairs for the Medical Center and Vice
Chancellor for the Community College System to the
University Senate as ex officio, voting members. C“—‘;>

(Circulated under date of 30 March 1987.)


Proposal to revise the requirements for admission to the
upper division degree programs in the College of Business
an Economics, University Senate Rules, Section IV — 2.2.8.
(Circulated under date of 30 March 1987.)


Proposal to establish admission, retention and graduation
standards for the Five—Year Professional Program in

Accountancy. (Circulated under date of El March 1987.)

Randall Dahl




The University Senate met in regular session at 3:00 p.m., Monday, April
13, 1987, in room ll5 of the College of Nursing/Health Sciences Building.

Wilbur W. Frye, Chairman of the Senate Council, presided.

Members absent were: Sandra Allen, Robert A. Altenkirch*, Richard Angelo*,
Patrick Appelman, Ronald Atwood, Michael A. Baer, James Barclay*, Charles E.
Barnhart, Raymond F. Betts, Dibaker Bhattacharyya, Frank J. Bickel, Tex Lee
Boggs, Ron Borgmeier, Charlie Boyd, Jeffery A. Born, Peter P. Bosomworth, Ray
M. Bowen*, Carolyn Bratt*, Joe Burch, D. Allan Butterfield, Roger Calantone,
Harry Clarke, Lisa Corum, Emmett Costich, Frederick Danner, Leo Demski*,
Robert Lewis Donohew, Paul Eakin, Anthony Eardley, Donald G. Ely*, Stanley
Feldman, James Freeman*, Michael Freeman, Richard W. Furst, Art Gallaher,
Jr.*, Thomas C. Gray, Donna G. Greenwell*, John R. Groves*, Ottfried J. Hahn*,
Marilyn D. Hamann*, Lawrence A. Harris*, Zafar Hasan*, Ronald C. Hoover,
Raymond R. Hornback, Jennifer Jacquet, Mehran Jahad, John J. Just*, Joseph
Krislov, Robert G. Lawson, Arthur Lieber*, Bruce A. Lucas*, Edgar D. Maddox,
Paul Mandelstam*, Sally S. Mattingly*, John Menkhaus*, Robert Murphy, Michael
T. Nietzel*, Robert C. Noble*, Arthur J. Nonneman, Alan Perreiah*, John J.
Piecoro, David J. Prior, Peter Purdue, G. Kendell Rice, Frank Rizzo*, Thomas
C. Robinson, John M. Rogers, Thomas L. Roszman, Daniel Rowland, Wimberly C.
R0yster*, Edgar L. Sagan, Timothy Sineath, Joseph V. Swintosky*, Brian Taylor,
Michael G. Tearney*, Sheree Thompson, Marc J. Wallace, Cyndi Weaver, Jesse
Weil, James Wells, Charles T. Wethington, Carolyn Williams*, Constance P.
Wilson, H. David Wilson, and Peter Winograd*.

The Minutes of the meeting of February 9, l987, were approved as

The Chairman made the following announcements and remarks.

"First of all, a reminder about the tribute to Otis
Singletary on Thursday, April 16. Everyone is invited to
that. Please announce this in your classes because
students are certainly invited to attend. Announce it in
your classes to your graduate students, staff members,
anyone else who is associated with the University and might
wish to attend.

The Faculty Trustee election has been completed. Mary
Sue Coleman was elected and will replace Connie Wilson
whose term will expire on June 30.

The Senate Council breakfasts are going along quite
well. This is to give you a review of some of the things
we have done. We have had breakfast with the Senate
Standing Committee Chairpersons. We have had breakfast
with the three Chancellors: Dr. Wethington, Dr. Gallaher,
and Dr. Bosomworth. In fact, we had breakfast with Dr.
Gallaher and Dr. Bosomworth twice. We had breakfast with
the nine area legislators. Tomorrow we are scheduled

*Absence explained


 to have breakfast with Dr. Singletary and on April 28 we
plan to have breakfast with Mayor Baesler who is Chairman
of the state-wide Economic Development Commission. That is
the extent of our plans for Senate Council breakfasts to
this point.

I might announce that the Senate Council will elect a
Chairman—elect for l987—88 at its next meeting on April 23.

An ad_hgg calendar committee has been appointed to
study the Study Days Proposal that was discussed at our
March meeting of the University Senate. Connie Bridge has
agreed to serve as chair of the committee. The members
are: Carolyn Bratt, Susan Brothers, a student, Joe Davis,
Dan Fulks, Barbara Mabry, John Menkhaus, a student
representative, Enid Waldhart and Jim Hells. I have asked
that committee, once the students have done a survey to
determine the interest among students with regard to this
proposal, to begin meeting and be prepared to make a report
back to the Senate in the Fall Semester.

Representing the University Senate, Bill Lyons, Louis
Swift and I will attend a Forum on Education for candidates
for the l987 gubernatorial primary tonight at 7:45 in
Louisville. The Forum is sponsored by the Prichard
Committee and the Kentucky Advocates for Higher Education.
I think it will be televised by KET beginning at 8:00 p.m.
if you are interested in watching.

To give you a bit of a preview of the September agenda
of some of the things that have come through the Senate
Council in addition to the traditional address from Dr.
Roselle that I assume will be given, there will be a
proposal on the revision of the I grade rule. Also, a
proposed addition to the Senate Rules covering program
changes for professional students. Ihose are the only two
items that we know of right now that will be on the
September agenda. Perhaps there will be others that will
come through the Senate Council during the summer.

This weekend I was at a meeting where Gary Cox spoke.
He told a story that I thought was fitting for today since
it is the last Senate meeting. Someone asked him how he
had been faring as the new Director of the Council on
Higher Education. He said that reminded him of the story
about an advertisement put in the ”Lost and FoUnd." It
said, 'Lost, a three-legged dog with canine teeth missing,
part of his ear missing, blind in one eye, castrated, tail
broken in three places and answers to the name of Lucky.I
I don't feel quite that bad, as we come to the last Senate
meeting of this year.

On May l5, I will turn the Senate Council Office over
to Bill Lyons. I consider it a great privilege to have had
the opportunity to serve as Chairman of the Senate Council.


 One of the things that I've enjoyed most has been working
with you and other faculty members.

The most important component of any university is its
faculty. To realize the importance of the faculty in the
accomplishments of the University of Kentucky, one needs
only to realize that the success of a comprehensive
university is measured by the results of its teaching,
research, and public service —— the very things that the
faculty is responsible for.

There is another responsibility of the faculty that is
just as important. A university is run by a collegial
system of governance, which means that faculty, students,
staff, administration, and trustees share the load and
responsibility for running the university and seeing that
the job gets done. A faculty member must take this
responsibility as seriously as the others. That's what the
University Senate is all about.

I want to compliment the faculty of the University of
Kentucky in general and you in particular in that regard.
This is a dedicated, enthusiastic, well-qualified,
professional faculty, which has the best interest of the
University in mind. I can't remember asking anyone to do
anything that they did not willingly do. I have felt your
support all year long, and it has been a good feeling. I
have made new friends, strengthened old friendships, and
made acquaintances that I hope will develop into close
friendships in the future.

Again, thank you for helping to make my job easier.”

The Chair recognized Professor Louis Swift (Classical Languages and
Literatures) for a report on the University Studies Program.

Professor Swift‘s report follows:

"Thank you Wilbur. I am pleased to report to you and
the Senate about developments in the University Studies
Program. The last nine months have been rather busy, and I
welcome the chance to share with you both the progress we
have made and the problems we face. Perhaps at the start a
word is in order about the modus operandi of the University
Studies Committee. As you may know the seventeen members,
including two students, represent a cross section of the
academic units on campus, and each person also serves on
one of the several subcommittees which have been
established to handle particular components of the
University Studies Program (i.e., mathematics, the
disciplinary requirements, the cross-disciplinary
requirements, the cross-disciplinary component, the
cross-cultural component, and oral communication). There
is no subcommittee for the English writing requirement or
for foreign languages inasmuch as these components are


 quite straightforward and call for little interpretation.
Though the subcommittees are chaired by members of the
University Studies Committee, they include faculty members
at large from a wide range of departments. Our aim in
including faculty outside the USP Committee is to enlist as
much expertise as we can in making decisions about course
proposals and to propagate our conviction that the
University Studies Program is something in which the whole
academic community has both a stake and a responsibility.
I am happy to report to you that the subcommittee system
has worked very, very well. All the participating faculty
have done yeoman service. They have raised issues we had
not anticipated and have generated many good suggestions
for improvements in the program. I commend them and thank
them for the fine work which they continue to do.

Both the USP Committee and the subcommittees have been
meeting regularly, especially in this second semester when
course proposals have been submitted in rather large
numbers. The Committee's call for proposals at this
relatively early date is predicated on Senate requirements
and on the publication date of the University catalogue.
You will recall that after the University Studies Committee
has selected the courses to be included in the program, we
must publicize our decision and hold open meetings.
Subsequently, the Senate Council will review our final
proposals and, if it approves them, must provide thirty

days for faculty to comment before the program goes into
effect. My guess is that these procedures will take close
to ninety days; hence, the need to proceed without delay.

Before discussing specific course proposals, let me
say that the new requirements have generated a good deal of
discussion about undergraduate education as a whole.
Departments are looking at what they do, and at least two
of them in Arts and Sciences have taken the new program as
an opportunity to revamp their curricula. Though such
wholesale revisions were scarcely intended or foreseen by
the Committee, this kind of rethinking of a department's
educational mission is an unexpected boon to undergraduate
studies. It has been heartening to see the efforts of some
units to adapt to the new requirements, and if much of this
activity is attributable to enlightened self—interest, it
nonetheless redounds to the benefit of students. At the
same time it must be admitted that recent budget cuts have
adversely affected the plans of some departments which had
projects underway, particularly in the cross-disciplinary
component of University Studies. As you might well
imagine, the course proposals which have been submitted
thus far in the disciplinary component range from very
traditional offerings to very imaginative ones. In the
natural sciences, for example, where we have identified
approximately l5 sequences in Chemistry, Biology, and
Physics, many of the usual introductory courses will be
included, but there is a new and very interesting sequence


 in Biology, and another one which combines Biology and
Entomology. In the social sciences, where the requirement
is a single course in two different disciplines, we have
currently received 28 proposals, and we anticipate there
will be at least a few more before the year is out. Here
again the traditional departments of Anthropology,
Psychology, Sociology, and Political Science are heavily
involved, but the Department of Family Studies and the
Department of Communication are also represented. In the
humanities thus far we have 14 proposed sequences in the
areas of literature, history, and philosophy, and I
anticipate at least as many more from the College of Fine
Arts. It is evident, then, that in the disciplinary
component of Univeristy Studies there will be no dearth of

The cross—disciplinary requirement continues to
stimulate a lot of discussion and a lot of queries across
campus. In this area 25 sequences have thus far been
proposed. There are some very natural matches coming out
of the departments in the College of Arts and Sciences
(e.g., from Classics, Philosophy, and History), but, we
have also received proposals which link Arts and Sciences
with the College of Home Economics as well as with the
College of Fine Arts. As of this moment we do not have
sufficient cross—disciplinary offerings to satisfy the
future demand, but more are to be submitted in the next two
weeks, and with the reinstitution of Summer Teaching
Improvement Grants this year, additional ones should be
proposed in the Fall.

In the cross-cultural component 4l courses have thus
far been submitted for consideration. These come primarily
from the departments of anthropology and geography, but
also from political science, philosophy, history, Spanish,
the Religious Studies Program and from the College of
Education. By the end of the semester we will have a good
idea of our current resources in this area and will be in a
position to know what additional ones are needed.

As you know, writing is a required component of all
University Studies courses. Though this dimension has
created problems for some departments with large
enrollments, I am pleased to say that some form of writing
will be incorporated in all the USP offerings. The amount
and type of written composition is perhaps not always what
we would ideally like it to be, but substantial progress
has been made in this area.

In Areas I and II of University Studies (that is in
Basic Skills and in Inference and Communicative Skills),
the requirements are quite specific, and the offerings in
English, math, philosophy, statistics, and foreign
languages are what we might expect.


 The oral communication requirement, however, is
another matter. When the Senate included this component in
University Studies, the sense of the discussion was that
there could and should be more than one way of fulfilling
this requirement, and I believe there was a great deal of
confidence that many courses already existed outside the
College of Communications which would meet the needs of
students in this area. Now that the Committee has explored
the question in some detail, I must report to you that such
an assumption seems unwarranted. Let me try to explain.

If we define the oral communication requirement as the
development of a specific skill through substantial
instruction in theory and through practical exercises, the
number of offerings which currently meet these stipulations
is meager. At this juncture, it appears that programs in
only two professional colleges outside the College of
Communications will satisfy this definition of the
requirement, and there is the possibility that two other
colleges will have such programs in place before September
of 1988.

On the other hand, if we define the requirement in
terms of departmental seminars, which give students some
practical experience but a bare minimum of instruction in
speech, we are in a slightly different position. Even this
option, however, is not a panacea. Some departments have
seminars; others do not. Some departments would welcome
the idea of initiating them; some would not and would
prefer to have their students satisfy the requirement
through the Department of Communication. If the majority
of departments take this latter route, it will be
difficult, if not impossible, to implement a three hour
component without increasing quite dramatically the
resources of the College of Communications. The cost for
doing this is approximately $75,000 per annum. From one
perspective that is not a great deal of money, but because
of other needs in the University Studies Program and needs
elsewhere across campus, many Committee members are
strongly opposed to such a reallocation of resources. As
things presently stand the Committee is agreed only on the

1. If we are to have a requirement, some type
of formal instruction in oral communication
is necessary.

It is perhaps best to give individual colleges
considerable latitude in determining how the
requirement will be fulfilled.

If seminars are acceptable, workshops conducted by
the College of Communications to train faculty in
oral communication would be highly desirable.


 4. Video modules on oral communication would be help—
ful to use with students in departmental seminars.

I regret the loose ended discussion of this issue, but
in the absence of specific guidelines about the precise
nature of the requirement, we have tried to wind our way
between what we thought was the intention of the Senate and
what the resources dictate. The Committee is not prepared
to make a specific suggestion for solving the problem at
this time but will be ready to do so in the early Fall.

Before closing I would like to comment very briefly on
a few other dimensions of the University Studies Program
which have occupied the Committee's attention. These have
to do with disseminating information about the require—
ments, the maintenance of quality in the program, and
evaluation. With respect to the first, we are dealing with
two constituences: l) secondary school counselors and
students who anticipate entering the University of Kentucky
in the Fall of l988, and 2) faculty in the Community
College System. Within the next two weeks we should have
in hand a flyer and a manual to be used by counselors in
the high schools across the state, and in consort with the
Office of Admissions and the Office of the Registrar, we
will be informing prospective students about the new

Throughout this year we have been very active with the
Community Colleges. Members of the Committee have
participated in some of the articulation conferences
conducted by the Office of Admissions on the Community
College campuses, and, by the end of the year we will have
talked with the faculty and administrators at each
location. The response which we have received on these
trips has been universally favorable. Though some faculty
have expressed concern about the implementation of certain
components and about the role of the Community Colleges in
the program, they have given strong endorsement to the new
requirements. Our contacts with the Community Colleges
have been a very rewarding experience, and we have made a
point of encouraging the faculty to submit courses to
satisfy the various areas of University Studies.

With respect to teaching, there is a remark in the
report of the General Education Review Committee which has
become increasingly obvious to me and to the Committee over
the past months. Toward the close of the document there is
an admonition that ”the success of University Studies will
depend on the dedication and performance of those engaged
in the process, not on the distribution of courses or the
number of hours required in the program.” If this is not
an eternal truth, it comes very close. Reorganization is

needed, but improvement will come only if we affect what is
done in the classroom. For this reason, I am delighted


 that the Office of Academic Affairs instituted this year a
new annual award of $2,000.00 for outstanding contributions
to undergraduate education. The first recipients are
Professors Jane Peters and Janet Isenhour who developed a
very effective program in writing across the curriculum.
This kind of recognition is much needed, and I am happy
that the awards will continue next year and beyond. I am
also pleased that the Summer Teaching Improvement Grants
have been reinstituted, and I think that they should become
a permanent part of the University‘s budget. Though these
are small steps, I hope they presage additional ones which
will help to bring the issue of teaching more to the
forefront in our thinking and our planning for the future.

In this connection, the Committee recently gave
unanimous endorsement to a proposal that the University of
Kentucky adopt a policy of allowing faculty and staff to
take one course per semester free of charge without earned
credit as part of the employees' benefits. Such a policy,
if adopted and well advertised, would help to enhance the
academic atmosphere on campus and would, I believe, enrich
teaching in a significant number of classrooms.

The last point I would like to raise is the matter of
evaluation. More than one individual in and outside our
Committee meetings has asked precisely what kinds of
efforts will be made to ensure quality in the University
Studies Program. If you will recall, the maintenance of
quality and the development of an atmosphere of excellence
in the area of general education were among the primary
aims of the Senate in originally establishing the
University Studies Committee and proposing that there be a
director for the program. Efforts at evaluating individual
courses in University Studies is a very delicate business,
but there is a strong feeling of the Committee that some
kind of ongoing review is necessary if the students are to
be served well in this important area of their college
experience. The precise methods for ensuring quality have
yet to be worked out, but the issue will be uppermost in
the Committee's mind when we return to our task in the Fall.

Evaluation applies not just to individual courses but
to the impact of the University Studies Program as a
whole. You are aware, I suspect, that across the country
terms like "assessment," "outcomes," or ”measures of
effectiveness” have become buzzwords on campuses, in
legislative halls and wherever people interested in higher
education congregate. Growing concern has been expressed
about the quality of undergraduate education. People want
to know what students learn, how much progress they make
during their time on campus, and what kind of educated
persons they are when they graduate. Although simple
answers to such questions are not to be found and

unsophisticated assessments can be grossly misleading, I
suspect that when properly posed and evaluated neither the


 questions nor the answers should give us qualms. In fact,
quite the contrary. I am convinced that a great deal of
good teaching goes on at the University of Kentucky and
that we can be proud of much that we do. In the present
climate, however, I think we need something better to go on
than our best guesses, and with the initiation of
University Studies, we have an ideal opportunity to obtain
concrete information about the overall effectiveness of our
general education program. It has been the experience of
several institutions in recent years that no small benefits
accrue both to faculty and to students who engage in some
kind of evaluation of what students learn in this area of
their studies. I hope that over the next year the
Committee will look carefully at some of the successful
methods and instruments that have been used at other places.

Finally, let me say it has been a real pleasure for me
to become more closely acquainted with many faculty,
administrators, and students in this joint effort in which
we are engaged. I have been particularly blessed to work
with an articulate, hardworking, sometimes contentious, but
always sensitive and committed group of individuals on the
University Studies Committee. That has made a great deal
of difference both for the program and for myself. Thank
you very much.” '

Professor Swift was given a round of applause and Chairman Frye thanked
him for coming and giving the report.

The Chair recognized Professor Bradley Canon (Political Science) for a
presentation honoring President Singletary.

Professor Canon‘s remarks follow:

"Dr. Otis Singletary has served as President of the
University of Kentucky since l969. His is the third
longest period of service of UK's eight presidents and is
all the more notable in modern times when university
presidents generally have an average tenure of five or six

We all know that the University of Kentucky has
undergone dramatic changes during these l8 years. Not the
least of these changes has occurred in the nature and goals
of the academic curriculum. The Senate and the Senate
Council are charged with developing academic policy at UK,
but such development could not be accomplished without the
interest and cooperation of Dr. Singletary and his
administration. We have always had that cooperation. And
that cooperation has extended beyond academic policies; it
has involved consultation on many and various aspects of
managing the University.

Now that his tenure as President of the University is
ending, the University Senate unanimously adopted last


 month a resolution of gratitude and appreciation for his
service in office. We are pleased to note, moreover, that
Dr. Singletary is not retiring from university service, but
that he will become the first occupant of the Otis A.
Singletary Distinguished Chair of the Humanities.

For the reasons set forth in the resolution—-as well
as many others too numerous to includeu-the University
Senate asks Dr. Singletary to accept this plaque containing
the words of the resolution as a memento of our deep
gratitude and appreciation. [See the Minutes of March 9,
1987, pp. 3 and 4 for Resolution to President Singletary.]

Professor Canon asked Dr. Singletary to come forward to receive the
plaque. The Senate gave Dr. Singletary a round of applause.

President Singletary's remarks follow:

"Thank you Brad and good afternoon ladies and
gentlemen° I need hardly to say that I am pleased and
delighted to have this. I will treasure it as one of my
favorite mementos of eighteen interesting years at this
institution. As a matter of fact, I will admit to you that
I am at the point in my career where a kind word from any
direction sounds pretty good. I was talking to someone the
other day and they asked, 'What is your great ambition
now?I I said, 'Primarily to be mistaken for a historian by

This is, I take it, chronologically the last meeting
of the Senate that I will not officially preside over.
There have been a lot of those as some of you know. I will
simply say that that particular decision was always based
on the assumption that this body should have its own
elected presiding officer, and I think it made for a more
congenial operation and I have appreciated the good work of
the many distinguished members of this faculty who have
served as presiding officers of this body.

I go out with one conviction that I brought in, and I
have said it to some of you personally and many of you
publicly. No matter what all the reports, all the studies
and all of the expectations for the future may be, the true
future of the University of Kentucky resides in the hands
of the faculty. Administrators can do some things for a
university; they can help provide the raw materials for
things to be done. The students can provide a certain
ambiance as well. The true value of this University will
be reflected in the way this faculty does its two most
important things -- that is the instruction of the young
charges you have going and coming every year and the
advancement of knowledge through your own research, writing
and scholarship. I would be less than candid if I did not

tell you that one of my reat sorrows as I leave this
institution is that I wi I miss the assoc1ation I have had


 with many of you with full realization there are many fine
people out there that one no longer gets to know or work
with very closely in an institution this size and the
complexity of ours. For all of you I want to say one more
time thank you and I appreciate not just what you have done
to make this a better university, and I believe it is a
better university, but to tell you that my expectations for
you in the future are very high and very real. I know that
David Roselle is going to come in and receive the same kind
of support and help that has been your nature to provide,
for which I am grateful. Thank you very much.”

Again, President Singletary was given a round of applause. The Chairman
thanked him for coming and letting the Senate honor him with the resolution
and said in doing so he had honored the Senate. [The President departed.]

The Chair recognized Professor William Lyons for presentation of action
item d. on the agenda. Professor Lyons, on behalf of the Senate Council,
moved adoption of the proposal to establish admission, retention and
graduation standards for the Five-Year Professional Program in Accountancy.
This proposal was circulated to members of the Senate under date of March 31,

The Chair said the proposal needed no second since it came from the Senate
Council. The floor was opened for discussion of the motion. Professor Dan
Fulks was at the meeting to answer questions. There was no discussion, and
the Chairman called for the vote. The motion unanimously carried and reads as


Admission Standards

1. Application for admission into the Five—Year Professional
Program in Accountancy must be made during the first four
weeks of the semester following the completion of 72 credit

The applicant shall have: (a) completed the general
education component of the curriculum plus ACC 30l and ACC
324 and (b) earned a GPA of 3.00 overall and 3.25 in
Accounting. .

An appeals mechanism will be established for those students
who do not meet the above criteria but wish to be
considered for admission as exceptions to the criteria. A
written appeal must be received by an appeals body one
month prior to the beginning of the semester for which the
student is seeking admission.

Retention Standards
Students pursuing the professional program must maintain a 3.00

GPA in all hours attempted throughout the fiveiyear program.
If a student's GPA in the hours attempted after admission to


 the professional program falls below 3.00, the student will be
given one semester to bring his or her GPA up to 3.00.

Graduation Standards

In order to graduate with an M.S. in the Professional Program
in Accountancy, students must have at least a 3.00 GPA in all
work attempted and must have successfully completed a
comprehensive final examination.

Background and Rationale:

The Five—Year Professional Program in Accountancy was approved
during the Sprin